Disposed

N.v.John v. Tahasildar

Kerala HC20 Dec 2018WP(C)/41716/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ PETITION (C) No. 41716 of 2018 was filed by a senior citizen seeking transfer of registry (mutation) of land in the revenue records. The High Court directed the competent authorities to consider the petitioner's application after affording him an opportunity of being heard within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be heard and authorities to decide mutation application within two months.

N.v.John Vs Tahasildar — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 41716 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

N.V.JOHN AGED 66 YEARS

¶8

S/O. VARKEY, NJALLOOR HOUSE, KOOVALLOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686671.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 TAHASILDAR,

¶12

KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM - 686691.

¶13

2 VILLAGE OFFICER, POTHANIKKAD VILLAGE, POTHANIKADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686671.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY,SR.GOVT.PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C)No.41716/2018

¶18

¶19

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶20

¶21

W.P.(C)No.41716 OF 2018

¶22

¶23

Dated this the 20^th day of December, 2018

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows :

¶26

“i. Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction, directing the respondents to effect transfer of registry (mutation) of the property of the petitioner obtained as per registered settlement deed No.2376/68 of SRO, Kothamangalam, in the revenue records within a reasonable time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

¶27

ii. Such other relief this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶28

Heard Sri.Sojan Micheal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶29

The petitioner is the senior citizen who is aged more than 66 years

¶30

and he claims to be the absolute owner having possession and enjoyment of 2.08 Acres of land in Sy.No.711/1/2, 716/1, 715/2, 710/7/1/17, 715/3, 723/5/2 &

¶31

915/10 of Pothanikadu village, Kothamangalam Taluk, Ernakulam Revenue

¶32

W.P.(C)No.41716/2018

¶33

¶34

District which he obtained on the basis of Ext.P1 registered partition deed dated 23.9.1968 of SRO, Kothamangalam. It is stated that Ext.P1 registered partition deed has been executed by the parents and brothers of the petitioner and that the petitioner was a minor at the time of execution of Ext.P1 partition deed and hence he was represented by his father. The petitioner has now submitted Ext.P2 application dated 19/02/2018 before the 1^st respondent Tahsildar for grant of mutation and transfer of registry in respect of his share of property covered by Ext.P1 partition deed ( E Schedule) for which he has absolute title, possession and enjoyment etc. The petitioner was constrained to submit Ext.P2 application before the 1^st respondent Tahsildar as the 2^nd respondent has refused to accept the same. But that till date grant of mutation is not effected and it is delayed without any valid reasons. The petitioner would point out that 2^nd respondent has already effected transfer of registry and mutation of the property in the name of the brothers of the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P1 partition deed and that the action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal etc.

¶35

The petitioner would point out that his predecessor in interest in respect of E schedule property of Ext.P1 partition deed was the registered land holder of the said land from whom land tax has also been accepted and therefore since the petitioner has obtained the said property on the basis of

¶36

W.P.(C)No.41716/2018

¶37

¶38

Ext.P1 partition deed, he is the “assignee” of the previous title holder as understood in Section 3(3)(d) of the Kerala Land Tax Act and therefore he would stand in the definition of “land holder” as understood in Section 3(3)(d) and hence the respondents are obliged to accept basic land tax and grant mutation as per the mandate of Section 5(2) read with Section 3(3)(d) of the Kerala Land Tax Act etc.

¶39

In the light of all these aspects, it is ordered that the competent authority of respondents 1 and 2 will consider the request of the petitioner in Ext.P2 application and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner will take a decision thereon without much delay preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶40

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

sv.

W.P.(C)No.41716/2018

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE LEGIBLE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED DATED 23/09/68.

¶49

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19/02/2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

N.v.John v. Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.v.John v. Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.v.Gopi Vs State of Kerala

V.J.Wilson Vs the Coir Inspector, Office of the Coir Inspector

N.Mohanan Vs National Highways Authority of India

Biju Abraham Vs the Village Officer

Sreenivasan Vs the Tahsildar

R.Babu Rajan Vs State of Kerala